UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-6954



WILLIAM Q. TERRY,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


EDWARD F. REILLY, JR., United States Parole
Commission; B.A. BLEDSOE, Warden,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (1:04-cv-00027-WCB)


Submitted: August 24, 2006                 Decided: September 1, 2006


Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Q. Terry, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           William      Q.   Terry,    a      District   of    Columbia inmate

imprisoned in West Virginia, seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition.                The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.          28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).             A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”                      28 U.S.C.

§   2253(c)(2)   (2000).      A   prisoner     satisfies      this   standard    by

demonstrating    that    reasonable        jurists   would      find   that     any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.            Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Terry has not

made the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.                We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.



                                                                       DISMISSED


                                      - 2 -